A second federal judge has issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from carrying out his plan to limit US birthright citizenship, stating that no court in the United States has ever validated the Republican president's explanation of the Constitution.
A US District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled in Greenbelt, Maryland on Wednesday that two immigrant rights groups and five pregnant women were right, arguing that their children were at risk of being denied US citizenship due to their parents' immigration status, a move deemed unconstitutional.
A Boardman, an appointee of President Biden, who is a Democrat and predecessor to Trump, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on February 2 to temporarily halt Trump's order from taking effect as scheduled on February 19 while the issue is being legally contested.
Our new platform, offering a selection of curated content including in-depth explanations, frequently asked questions, analyses, and informative graphics, has been developed by our skilled and esteemed team.
Today, every newly born baby in the United States is, by law, a US citizen upon birth," Boardman stated. "This is a fundamental rule in the US; it has been for many years, and it is likely to continue this way until this legal situation is clarified.
A US Justice Department attorney requested 60 days to answer the injunction, without revealing whether the Trump administration would contest it. Boardman's decision grants longer-lasting respite to opponents of Trump's policy than an exchange initiated on January 23 by a federal judge in Seattle, which had imposed a 14-day halt.
The judge, John Coughenour, termed Trump's directive "blatantly unconstitutional". Coughenour is scheduled to examine on Thursday whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect until the legal dispute is resolved.
Trump's executive order, signed on his first day back in office on January 20, had instructed US agencies to decline to acknowledge the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither their mother nor father is a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
It is a component of Trump's strict policies regarding immigration that he has implemented since regaining authority.
Lawyers for immigration advocacy groups CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, who initiated the case before Boardman, have contended that Trump's decree contravenes the constitutional provision laid out in the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which stipulates that any individual born in the United States is a citizen.
Boardman stated at the hearing that Trump's understanding of the Constitution has been "resoundingly rejected" by the Supreme Court on previous occasions.
In fact, no court in the country has ever sanctioned the president's interpretation," Boardman said. "This court will not be the pioneer in doing so.
The Maryland lawsuit is one of at least eight filed in the United States by Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates and expectant mothers contesting Trump's directive.
Pursuant to Trump's directive, any children born within the United States after February 19 will be at risk of deportation and will be barred from obtaining Social Security numbers, various government benefits and the right to work lawfully when they become adults.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship each year if the President's proposal is allowed to take effect, as predicted by attorneys general from 22 Democratic states who have filed lawsuits in Seattle and Boston to prevent the policy.
Joseph Mead, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Maryland case, stated that Trump's order is causing "real-world harm for countless people today" because citizenship is "the foundation for so many other rights".
Those opposing Trump's order argue that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was clearly defined 127 years ago when the US Supreme Court decided that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are automatically entitled to citizenship.
The Trump administration claims that previous administrations misinterpreted a specific clause in the 14th Amendment, arguing that its text and historical context show that the Constitution does not automatically grant citizenship to children born in the US to immigrant parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The department claims that the 1898 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark had a narrower scope than Trump's detractors suggest; namely, it limited its ruling only to minors whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States".
"Unauthorized immigrants are not allowed to be present in the United States," Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton stated.
Boardman stated that Trump's order "conflicts with the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125 years of established Supreme Court jurisprudence, and is at odds with our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."
The Maryland case was one of several scheduled for hearings between Wednesday and Monday on separate requests by plaintiffs to stop implementing Trump's order before a February 19 deadline.
More Articles from SCMP
Actress Barbie 'Big S' Hsu's ashes sent home to Taiwan
This article was first published on the South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), leading news source providing coverage of China and Asia.
Copyright (c) 2025. South China Morning Post Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Post a Comment